Instructional Design
From LiteracyTentWiki
Contents |
Instructional Design Discussion
Instructional Design
From Dr. Edyburn:
Yesterday we examined the role of assistive technology in helping struggling readers access print. Today we turn our attention to instructional technology. The primary focus of instructional technology is on teaching and learning. This means, how might a teacher or volunteer use technology to introduce new concepts, vocabulary, content, etc. Perhaps more importantly, it also involves the learner using technology to interact with curriculum materials in order to achieve the learning objectives.
One definition of instructional technology is as follows:
Instructional Technology is the theory and practice of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation of processes and resources for learning. ... The words Instructional Technology in the definition mean a discipline devoted to techniques or ways to make learning more efficient based on theory but theory in its broadest sense, not just scientific theory. ... Theory consists of concepts, constructs, principles, and propositions that serve as the body of knowledge. Practice is the application of that knowledge to solve problems. Practice can also contribute to the knowledge base through information gained from experience. ... Of design, development, utilization, management, and evaluation ... refer to both areas of the knowledge base and to functions performed by professionals in the field. ... Processes are a series of operations or activities directed towards a particular result. ... Resources are sources of support for learning, including support systems and instructional materials and environments. ... The purpose of instructional technology is to affect and effect learning.
Source: Seels, B., & Richey, R. (1994). Instructional technology: The definition and domains of the field (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communications and Technology.
Is technology an essential instructional tool?
In the K-12 educational community, and in the adult literacy community, there is little agreement about whether technology is an essential tool to be used by teachers and students. Your thoughts? Should the use of technology by literacy coaches, tutors, and volunteers be an optional or required tool for teaching adults to read?
Instructional Technology vs. Assistive Technology
From Dr. Edyburn:
Q: [According to the definition of AT that you presented] then would that mean that the Audio Phonetic System of Learning (APSL) developed and implemented by Dr. Charles Shedd in the 1950's (which is still being used in communities currently) as "technology"? The APSL uses three levels of workbooks that build upon each other. The workbooks use rote education along with tutors and a multi-sensory "Memory Board." The memory boards used in the program have rough wall paper on one side that allows one to feel the words being made. The shedd program claims that tactile and muscle memory help lesson retention in all ages of students they have worked with. ... Is the original memory board, a masonite board with one side smooth and one side rough, considered assistive technology? Is the APSL considered assistive technology?
A: The individual that posed this question accurately picked up the ambiquity of the definition of assistive technology. If assistive technology is anything... then, why isn't the APSL assistive technology?
A very good question. And, a source of contention in many educational enviroments today.
Let me provide another example that may help us understand the issues here. Perhaps you have seen the software program Inspiration (If not, you can download a free 30-day trial copy at http://www.inspiration.com). It was designed to give students an alternative to outlining. You know the problem with outlines: we wait until we finish the paper to write them. The reason for this is that novices don't know their topic, the relationship between key ideas, the sequence of idea development, or many facts. In contrast, experts can make an outline in a few minutes because they know the subject matter, what's most important, what's a supporting detail, etc. Inspiration allows users to brainstorm their ideas and then once they are captured move them around and orgnize the ideas. Then, with the click of a button the software creates the outline based on the visual organization.
Here's the question: Is the software product Inspiration, assistive technology or instructional technology?
In reality, it could be either. For some students, they learn how to make concept maps so they can do it on the back of a napkin. For other students, they are unable to independently complete the task without the supports of the software tool. What happens when we begin to worry about whether a product is AT or IT, we lose sight of the real outcome. That is, what is the role of the product in learning?
When the primary focus of of a tool is on learning, the tool is probably IT. I would suggest that is the case with the first example of APSL. When a tool is used to support learning (e.g., acquisition of new content), it often functions as a scaffold that is used temporarily and then discarded when the learner has internalized the processes.
When the primary focus of a tool is on performance, the tool is probably AT. We can measure the impact of assistive technology by asking the student to complete the task, with and without the tool. When we remove the tool we observe failure/poor performance. When we provide the tool, performance is greatly improved over the unaided performance. The need for assistive technology is likely to be lifelong.
In order to assess a claim that a product serves an assistive technology function will need to collect evidence of performance, with and without, the use of the tool.
I often find the example of the calculator to be an interesting discussion point concerning AT vs IT. That is, does the calculator serve a scaffold function in learning to do math calculations so that it is subsequently discarded once the user internalizes the processes? Or, is acceptable performance predicated on the use of the calculator? In the former case, the technology is serving an IT function; in the later case the technology is serving an AT function.
Typically the use of technology is acceptable in instructional contexts as a powerful learning aid. However, it is less clear when we recognize the failure of instruction to produce high levels of student performance and implement assistive technology such that the student can complete the desired task at an acceptable performance level.
When to start using assistive technology
From Dr. Edyburn:
Q: At what age or educational level would you advise switching to adaptive options rather than traditional print based educational strategies.
A: I think this is a critical question that we need lots more dialogue about.
For example, in grades K-3 the primary focus is on teaching students to read. Then, in grade 4 and beyond the focus shifts to reading to learn.
What happens when students enter fourth grade without the developmental skills necessary to benefit from a text-based curriculum?
In the context of our discussion, if an adult has never learned to read, how long do we continue to teach him to read? At what point should the emphasis in intervention shift from instruction/remediation to compensation (assistive technology)?
I've asked the question you raised in some of my writing (references and links below) and we'll talk more about this on Friday. For now, I would like to suggest that our notions about when and how to respond to delays in reading skill acquisition are seriously flawed. Unfortunately, there are no guidelines or benchmarks to inform decision making about the percentage of time and effort that should be devoted to instruction/remediation and the percentage of time and effort that should be devoted to compensation. Personally, I am of the opinion we need to think about this issue not as an either/or question but one of a balance beam (teeter-totter) where the two percentages must equal 100%. For example, how I might respond to a fourth grader with reading difficulties (70% instruction, 30% compensation) is probably different than how I might respond to a non-reading adult (20% instruction, 80% compensation). For now, just raising the question and breaking out of the one-size-fits-all (100% instruction) model seems to me to be a good start for exploring the possibilities and conducting research.
Selected References
Edyburn, D.L. (2003). Learning from text. Special Education Technology Practice, 5(2), 16-27. PDF available: http://www.uwm.edu/~edyburn/LearningfromText.pdf
Remediation vs. Compensation: A critical decision point in assistive technology consideration. ConnSense Newlsetter [online publication] http://www.connsensebulletin.com/edyburnv4n3.html
Bridging the decoding-fluency gap
From Dr. Edyburn:
Q: One idea that piqued our director in a discussion yesterday was the idea of using assistive technology to bridge the decoding and fluency gap, so that work on comprehension would not be limited by decoding and fluency issues.
A: Yes!
If struggling readers fail to master the developmental processes of decoding, word recognition, etc., skills we consider essential access skills to reading, this means they are prevented from developing the higher level skills of comprehension, thinking/problem solving, literature appreciation, etc. Failure to acquire the access skills, for whatever reason, should be a trigger for considering assistive technology.
As we have discussed earlier today and will elaborate on later in the week, technology may serve as a temporary tool, a scaffold, for gaining access to the skills. Access barriers may have prevented the skills from being acquired. On the other hand, the technology may serve a performance support function in which case the assistive technology may always be necessary.
Much of my concern about the issue of instruction/remediation vs. compensation is based on the self-perception that struggling readers internalize. That is, they believe if they can't read they can't learn. How tragic!
If students fail to acquire decoding and fluency skills, why not use assistive technology tools to enable them to bypass those deficiencies in order to engage at the higher level reading/thinking skills?
In time, as we explore the possibilities that technology provides, our adult learners will help us understand if the technology serves the function of providing access, is only a temporary schaffold, or indeed is a lifelong assistive technology tool. When do we start engaging them in this process of discovery and validation?
My experience in using these tools with struggling readers is quite powerful: "Why didn't someone show me how to do this before?" "I can do this." "This means I can read anything I want." Wow.
Thanks for sharing the insight in your office with the group. I look forward to hearing the reactions and experiences of others about this important topic.
